Potentially unsafe mental distractions for drivers can persist for as long as 27 seconds after dialing, changing music or sending a text using voice commands, according to a pair of new studies for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety by University of Utah researchers.

The researchers discovered the residual effects of mental distraction while comparing new hands-free technologies in ten 2015 vehicles and three types of smartphones. The analysis found that all systems studied increased mental distraction to potentially unsafe levels. The systems that performed best generally had fewer errors, required less time on task and were relatively easy to use.

One of the studies showed that it is highly distracting to use hands-free voice commands to dial phone numbers, call contacts, change music and send texts with Microsoft Cortana, Apple Siri and Google Now smartphone personal assistants, though Google Now was a bit less distracting than the others.

The other study examined voice-dialing, voice-contact calling and music selection using in-vehicle information or “infotainment” systems in 10 model-year 2015 vehicles. Three were rated as moderately distracting, six as highly distracting and the system in the 2015 Mazda 6 as very highly distracting.

The results raise new and unexpected concerns regarding the use of phones and vehicle information systems while driving. This research represents the third phase of the Foundation’s comprehensive investigation into cognitive distraction, which shows that new hands-free technologies can mentally distract drivers even if their eyes are on the road and their hands are on the wheel. . . .

H'mm, a little 'Roadhouse Blues' flashback there, but I digress. There's much more in the article, including comparative ratings of various companies' systems, NissanConnect among others. This is why I don't use cell phones in cars and prefer physical buttons and knobs positionable by feel to touch screens and voice commands.

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

It would be much more helpful to have a 'median distraction time' than the old "Up to...". I'd guess that the XM touch screen distracts me for roughly 3-5 seconds, and the phone screen for two or three times as long. 27 seconds is what I'd expect if the car actually let me tune in new stations and add them while driving.

Despite the well-known dangers of distracted driving, the number of California drivers who use mobile devices while they drive is on the rise. In a study conducted by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in April 2016, at least 12.8% of California drivers were observed using a mobile device during the day, up from 9.2% in 2015 and eclipsing the previous high of 10.8% in 2013. Due to the difficulty of observing mobile device use in a vehicle, these figures are considered minimums, with actual usage likely several points higher. . . .

California and many other states observed National Distracted Driving Awareness Month in April. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) and hundreds of other law enforcement agencies conducted educational and enforcement efforts. The CHP alone organized more than 300 educational presentations and issued 13,496 citations for distracted driving violations. . . .

From 2013 to 2015, the number of drivers killed or injured in collisions in which distracted driving was a factor increased every year, from 10,162 in 2013, to 10,548 in 2014, and to 11,090 in 2015. . . .

Other findings in the observational survey:

Though nearly all types of usage were up, typing and posting increased by more than one-third.

The highest observed electronic device use and the fastest increase in usage is in urban areas, at 9.4%.

Electronic device use during rush hours increased by 71% in 2016.

The percentage of 16-24 year-olds talking on hand-held cell phones increased from less than 1% every year since 2012 to more than 2% in 2016.

Southern California drivers hold the phone to their ear at a rate double (3.8%) or more that of Central California drivers (1.9%) and Northern California drivers (1.4%).

Yet another reason for Norcal natives to look down on those living on the wrong side of the Tehachapis Not that there's anything funny about it. Of course, the only reason I'm not seriously injured or killed about once every 10 days in the Bay Area while walking or riding my bike is because I'm watching for the boneheads, and I've even seen a local cop chatting away on a handheld phone while driving on duty, so it's not as if we're without sin.

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

I do wish the nav screen would bluetooth to the phone, for google maps. That would be so much less distracting than looking at the phone, while driving. This will only be done via 3rd party. The car companies make too much money selling GPS systems.

Talking hands-free on a mobile phone while driving is just as distracting as a conversation using a hand-held phone, according to a recent study by researchers at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in Australia. . . .

Mobile phone distracted driving (MPDD) is an ongoing challenge for transport network managers. … Different studies report varying effects of MPDD on crash risk. An epidemiological study found that mobile phone conversations increase crash risk by a factor of four. Asbridge et al. reported that the odds of a culpable crash increase by 70% when the driver is using mobile phone. In the United States, an study of police crash reports showed that mobile phone distraction resulted in 18% of fatal crashes and 5% of injury crashes. Epidemiological studies and police reported data, however, often suffer from underreporting problems and do not record the exposure to mobile phone use, and therefore these estimates may be inaccurate. . . .

—Oviedo-Trespalacios et al. . . .

The study found that the reaction time of drivers participating in either a hand-held or hands-free conversation was more than 40% longer than those not using a phone.

In real terms this equates to a delayed response distance of about 11m for a vehicle travelling at 40km/h [25 mph]. This shows hands-free and hand-held phone conversations while driving have similar detrimental effects in responding to a very common peripheral event of a pedestrian entering a crossing from the footpath.

—Dr. Haque. . . .

Dr. Haque said it was the cognitive load required to hold a conversation that was the distraction, not whether or not the driver was holding a phone.

It appears that the increased brain power required to hold a phone conversation can alter a drivers’ visual scanning pattern. In other words, the human brain compensates for receiving increased information from a mobile phone conversation by not sending some visual information to the working memory, leading to a tendency to ‘look at’ but not ‘see’ objects by distracted drivers.

The distraction of a mobile phone conversation is not the same as an in-car conversation with a passenger because the non-driver can alter their dialogue based on the driving environment, for example stop talking when approaching a complex driving situation.

—Dr. Haque

Dr. Haque said the distraction of mobile phone use also had an impact on driver braking behavior; distracted drivers on average reduced the speed of their vehicle faster and more abruptly than non-distracted drivers, exhibiting excess braking

While the driver is likely to be compensating for the perceived risk of talking and driving, the abrupt or excessive braking by distracted drivers poses a safety concern to following vehicles. Again these findings highlight a need to consider mobile phone use laws in response to interventions to reduce rear-end crashes.

—Dr. Haque

To summarize, get off the phone (infotainment system etc.) and drive the damned car!

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

. . . Now, in a new open-access study published in the journal Human Factors, University of Southampton Alexander Eriksson and Neville Stanton report that under noncritical conditions, drivers needed 1.9 to 25.7 seconds to resume control in a highly automated vehicle. The large range reflects a variety of driver behavior and environmental conditions. The challenge for designers thus becomes accommodating the full range of response times rather than limiting design parameters to mean or median transition times in the switch to and from automated and manual driving modes, the authors suggested.

In the study, the authors observed 26 men and women (ages 20-52) engaged in simulated driving at 70 mph with and without a non-driving secondary (i.e., distracting) task and recorded the response time as the drivers took over or relinquished control of the automated system.

A takeover request was issued at random intervals ranging from 30 to 45 seconds during normal motorway-driving conditions. The authors found that [b]drivers engaged in a secondary task prior to a control transition took longer to respond, posing a safety hazard. The control transition times were substantially longer than those reported in the peer-reviewed literature[/b]. . . .

In addition to the above, which was expected, I learned the meaning of a new word: "platykurtic".

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.